a 25 year action research lab:
human cognition, communication, design

part two of three

GoTo: idiap presentation 05 - part one

GoTo: idiap presentation 05 - part three

GoTo: idiap presentation 05 - summary

Part Two includes: a brief description of the Taylor Method; how we use technology; how we know it works; and, what we have learned. Part One includes: the context for the remarks that follow: an introduction to MG Taylor and the work experience upon which my comments as based; the 3 Cat process we employ to do rapid prototyping; why we promote ValueWebs® and network architectures for organizations; my personal history and how this shaped my approach to technology design and use; and, a critique of contemporary trends in computer and multimedia applications. Part Three includes: some interesting questions; comments on As We May Think, my final thoughts and Postscript.

Brief Description of the Taylor Method

The Taylor Method is modeled on how the human brain works. Organic processes... Biomimicry... The Taylor Method is an external OS function for humans, individually and systems integrations function for humans in groups. It provides user-controlled meta-programming functions for GroupGenius. more to come

Iteration, recursion, feedback, the zone of emergence, intelligent agents, strong memory, creative habits. more to come

How We Use Technology

There are key principles that govern how we employ technology to support creative and collaborative processes. We do not introduce technology into a NavCenter that the staff KnowledgeWorkers [future link]cannot understand, configure and use without extensive support; and, that we have every reasonable expectation that the participant/users can also do so with reasonable levels of help from the KnowledgeWorkers. The technology has to be transparent and never get between people nor interfere with natural interaction. The technology must provide real value add not be there out of habit - or show. The footprint of the technology be kept as small as possible and not overwhelm the environment. That the way that the technology is configured and “presented” be as carefully done as any other architectural “feature” and that is adds to the sense of place and the message of intention of the NavCenter. That the technology be as flexible and instantly re-configurable as are all other aspects and components of the environment. That the cognitive implications of each technology are understood and fit with the work flow at hand. more to come

In the knowledge creation, capture, distribution and recreation cycle, we employ the 10 Step Process Model [link: 10 step model]. This is a systematic engine for “chunking” data and information into shared knowledge across a community. In DesignShops® the 10 Step process is done real time, first in support of the the sponsor, facilitation and KnowledgeWorker team and, in the event, the participant’s work which is captured, documented and feed back intot he process. Post event, a web based, media documentation (about the size of a book) is typically posted within 48 hours. In the day-to-day operations of a NavCenter, the process is used to support design teams, project management activities and discovery sessions. On the large Enterpise level, the 10 Step process is used to support stategy work and activiities like Weak signal research [link: weak signal research]. more to come

Media is employed in Taylor DesignShops, workshops and project management processes in a variety of ways. I expect this use to increase greatly as prices fall and integration increases. more to come

The greatest driver of increased general use of media will not be just better technology. There are two “requirements” that will bring media into the mainstream of everyday use by almost everyone. The first is the competition for “mind share” and the second is the increasing complexity of content that has to be absorbed prior to the execution of everyday transactions let alone solving complex organizational, social or global problems. The single most scarce “resource” that any of us have is regulated by the competition for attention from the organizations or individuals we seek to interact with. A connected economy allows unprecedented levels of interaction. One of the unintended consequences of this is getting that attention. Everyone is bombarded with messages and options - it takes a deliberate act to turn this off. A generation has grown up immersed in media of all kinds. In response, content, no matter if delivered by voice, slide show, print or e-mail, no longer can be separated from the message. Media is about to invade e-mails and almost every other means of everyday communications. I suspect that 2006 to be the “tipping point” year. Clearly, I mean this at a scale, scope and intensity far greater than we presently experience. How a message is designed, when it is delivered, how it will be adapted for and received by each who get it, will be carefully considered and executed. This is mass customization of individual communication. The days of broadcast messaging, as acceptable, are numbered. E-mails, web sites, BLOGS, wikis, PODcasts, are just the beginning tool kits that will be increasingly be used by an expanding population. It is the complexity of the content itself than creates the major information challenge we all face. We must deal with this ever increasing amount and complexity of content individually, in teams, at the organizational, social and global levels. We all need to grasp complex, multifaceted issues in a matter of minutes and make fine discriminations in regards them. Conventional ways of “packaging” information, used alone, will not prove capable of facilitating us to remain requisite with this increase in the rate of the rate of change and new forms of variety. Media can help bridge this gap. Even so, this will not ultimately prove to be enough. More sophisticated forms of machine augmentation of the human thought processes will be required by the environment that we are building with the tools we have today. Better use of media can buy us time.

I want to go back to the my statement that “all media is multimedia.” Pencil and paper is media - and good media by the way. A thought “in” the mind is media. So is an object on a video screen, a graphic on the wall, a book, a piece of sculpture, a toy, a drum, a sound system. A group of people sitting in a circle is media. Content does not directly transfer from one media to another. This is the idea behind the 4 Step Recreation Model [link: 4 step recreation model]. When concepts move from one media to another they must be recreated and/or the difference in the message understood. A media has a physical base. This physicality is important. Size, texture, shape, color, smell all matter. They convey messages by both denotation and contraction. The provoke memories. Virtual reality is as “real” as physical reality. Thoughts and ideas are not isolated, disembodied abstractions with no basis in life. They are rich, powerful collections and integrations of strong memory [link: 22 principles of memory] - they are non-repeatable experiences (This will be the big issue with thinking machines, by the way). You never have the same thought twice. Every time an idea or a person “moves” to another media there is an interface event. This moment also has cognitive implications. In thought processes, timing and transition are important. In a group setting it is critical. In a NavCenter we have a saying “everything speaks”. We pay attention to the set up of the space and everything in it what is being “said.” We consider that what is being said is “command language.” Given the same subject of discussion, a group sitting on the edge of the Grand Canyon will have a different experience than on sitting in a glass box on top of a tall building in New York City. Weather matters, light matters, the size of a computer screen - the window to the subject - matters. Everything matters. The current theory of the workplace is to take away as much as possible to remove distractions. Instead, appropriate variety should be employed to provide stimulation. The workplace should be a landscape [link: knowledge workers - hunter gathers] of ideas, resources, tools, collaborative work areas, individual work niches and places for rest and reflection - prospect and refuge. It should have art, plants, games, toys, shade and shadow, active areas, quite areas, music. A computer system is also a place. It is a world within a world and a doorway to other worlds. Its architecture, in the broadest sense of the word, is as important as the physical architecture the user is in - both of these are now in neglect. A city that people do not want to walk in is a poorly designed city. A building you do not want to touch is a monstrosity. A piece of technology that is not tactile and sensuous - is not thought of as a prized possession - is impoverished. A computer that is not experienced as a world, felt to be transportation though a universe of options, is not a companion - it does not augment the human experience. It will not be a robust participant in the act of creation.

The issue, when you think of media this way, is the integration of these different forms of expression-communication. To accomplish this with today’s technology requires an array of hardware and software with many “run walk run” steps. more to come

Configuring technology in the way I have indicated to support creativity, innovation and collaboration sounds obvious and easy - actually it is not. I will use a real life story to illustrate. When we operated the knOwhere Store in Palo Alto (1997 - 2003), naturally we had a number of Silicon Valley clients and users. Beyond this commercial aspect, the location afforded me the opportunity to occasionally have long afternoon conversations with people in technology about the matters addressed in this Paper. One day I received a call from a senior executive of a very large and well known company, who will remain nameless. She said “I have 15 of my people on there way down there and they will be there in half an hour.” “OK, why?” I asked. “Because I am tired of being told that we cannot do here, with all of our resources, what you do everyday at knOwhere.” The team cam down and I gave them a three hour tour, explained what we did and showed them how we configured and employed our technology. At the end, I said “help me understand, we are a six to ten million dollar company, in any given year, and you have revenues in the tens of billions. “Your research is world class and I know (having facilitated that group in a few sessions) you have technology that is years ahead of anything we have here. “Half the technology I have shown you came from your company. “How is it that you have to come here to see it used in this way?” The team leader, who had said very little during the visit looked at me with a combination of surprise and frustration, and said with mockery “we make this shit, we don”t use it!” I was stunned. This is a world class company - an icon of the industry. These were not stupid or dull people. They worked in a conventional environment (multiple campuses around the world) using conventional work and meeting processes. These processes are what they configured their technology to support. Their environments are the experience-base upon which they designed their technology and offered it to the world. This is what I mean when I say that the majority of technology applications to date has been automating the 19th Century. This company could buy and sell MG Taylor every minute (if not second) of the day. They have abundant genius in their ranks and technology that now, many years after this event, is still not on the market. They lived and worked in one paradigm and we did in another. Our capacity compared to theirs cannot be compared - it is too minute. We did eventually explore together some alternative business models with them but changing times scratched those projects. As far as I know, their way-of-working, today, is the same as it ever was. You have to submerge yourself in the “world” which you wish to create. This is one of the principle insights of our process. Technology transfers better than most human endeavors but not perfectly. Cultural cues and bias are always embedded in any technology. Culture is a structure. Structure Wins.

Getting HERE from THERE. From an Apple II to today... First, the physical algorithm - then the technology. The WorkWalls... first hard drive... One month to do a documentation - to one hour. Dbase II... The Taylor Executive System... The Mac... Work products... Enter video... InfoLog... HyperCard...The first full electronic studio... The “three screens”... Capturing in a data base... My personal front end... The www... Digital cameras... Today’s technology... The immediate future... more to come

How we buy. Off the shelf, multi-platform - Apple our platform of choice. more to come

How Do We Know It Works?

Why we created our Method and a few examples of its viablity. Complex, systemic, global-scale issues. Tests: F-15, AEDC, Boeing 777. more to come

Our test is success is based on... more to come

What We Have Learned

We have learned that group genius exists. It is a real phenomena and follows its own set of rules. It is not merely individual genius added up or even multiplied. The nature of it is different that how we individually experience and “manage” our conscious thought processes but is very similar to how the mind actually seems to work as a total system. Components of the mind can be thought of as agents and their interaction similar to how a group of human “agents” interact. In other words, deep cognitive processes scale - they also often jump recursion levels. This has profound implication for the design of group processes and also the creating of any “mind-like” systems to work in any context. The conditions necessary for group genius are radically different than for the individual however the habits are the same. A great deal of what we do in a DesignShop is to create the conditions right for group genius while “imposing” the habits of individual genius. This combination does not typically occur in our society except by accident. Bringing the two elements together is explosive - the total environment which is set has to be strong enough to contain this energy until fusion happens. more to come

(almost) Everybody is creative. There is an enduring social myth that only a few are creative and that the vast majority are not. We have found this to be a totally false assumption. We people are placed in an environment (environment, process and tools) designed to facilitate innovation, they act in ways they cannot - and will not - when in an environment based on industrial era assumptions. There are a few who seem to exhibit no creative capacity. This is a very small number. There are reasons for the few-are-creative myth. The common definition of creativity is flawed - there are many forms of creativity that until recently were not recognized. In most work environments, it is not asked for so it is not given. The prevalent and organizationally imposed structure of time-use, from minutes, to hours, days, weeks and the cycle of the year itself, is detrimental to the creative process. Creativity in our society is not understood, taught as a serious subject not practiced. Creativity is not mysterious but it is a discipline. Creative people do certain things that the majority does not [future link: creative habits]. more to come

Complexity and the rate of change can be matched... more to come

A (Modeling) Language is required... more to come

“Structure wins.”... more to come

The power of place... My design for Xanadu, a collaborative living and work environment provides some simple examples of how an environment can be shaped and managed to support creative collaboration and rapid prototyping. There are several straight forward, basic augmentation techniques that can be done anytime someone decides to build it. [link: xanadu pleasure palace]. more to come

It scales!... more to come

Modules work... more to come

Minski: Agents and Agency... more to come

“State 1, State 2, State 3 State...n.” The human brain changes with use. It employs digital, analog and network strategies. While functionally discrete in some ways is essentially a distributed system. This architecture is recursive. The same pattern language can be found in network of people, in global power systems and in Nature to name a very few. These “different” systems are connected to each other. It is only because of the limits of our language and our modeling tools that we speak of them being separate. This is a scalable, modular architecture. The system-of-systems, the systems and components with in it, moves from one integrated state to another. Memory is this total state and exists on many levels of recursion [future link]. What we call “structure” in our world is slow moving process - we do not often think of steel oxidizing (evaporating/burning) but it is. What we call “process” is fast moving/changing structure - think of what the molecules of water are actually doing while we see the wave. Structure wins! Humanity often tries to alter the complex outputs of a system rather than look at and adjusting the structures of components and relationships which generate the consequences for which we have concern. “The purpose of a system is its ”output” and this output is determined by its structure. These principles can be employed in creating human environments. It is therefore possible to create a context for a collaborative exercise that frames it while leaving the “Zone of Emergence” free [future link]. It is possible to have rigor and open-ended-ness. It is possible to get to a result, within practical limits of time and expenditure, without predetermining the result by default.

What Is Next

Next for MGT:  We have spent nearly three decades “getting HERE from THERE. We are approaching what I refer to as “level one.” This is when our environments function as intended and diagrammed in that 1982 sketch. Of the three legs of our Method: physical environment, process and technology augmentation, the process is very robust and still years ahead of the other two. We are, just recently, beginning to build the physical place as we envisioned it in the late 70s. The technology is a stubby leg causing an unbalanced stool indeed. There are three reasons for this. the first is cost. You will notice that the progression from process to environment to technology is actually a progression of capital requirements. The second reason is that the base technology is just now becoming robust enough (at affordable prices) to do the kinds of things a fully functioning NavCenter requires. The third is actually more problematic. Technology development, from my perspective, has missed many opportunities for effective human augmentation. There are two reasons for this: the attractions of immediately understood, practical tools that support traditional processes and can be produced for impressive profits; and, the equally attractive lure of AI which is a long range goal and a real home run. I am actually interest in both of these but more concerned about the missing middle. The everyday tools are slowly creeping toward, if not augmentation, the capability can be used to support sophisticated processes. I have no doubt that strong AI is achievable and that AI research has already paid for itself many ties over due to technology “trickle down.” With discrete improvements of existing technology, we can start working on a set of capacities which will yield rich results in human capacity for very small investments.

Level I facility and...Network of critical mass; Document history; Transfer beyond a single organization; Build true ValueWeb; Use it; Embedded in other work; Demonstrate design economy and ethical business practices. more to come

In five years what can be accomplished? Remote Presence; Remote Collaboration; Adaquate displays; Tecnology imbeed into the WorkFurniture and envionment; Expertise and mutidisciplinary capability; identity, voice, word recognition; Automated documentation; Support for multi intellenges; Human work; A new computer architecture; tactile machines; team environments; wearable and implanted technology; augmented multitasking; smarter environments; more to come